With single payer it will be one system for all

[Guest guest]

,

You don not seem to want to answer to my question: why Americans have to

pay more than the other developed countries and yet have less health care .

I do not know if England, France, Canada, Australia, feed their people; I

know they have health coverage for all. That is our subject.

Now, about spending down; become poor actually, as the middle class

income-- pension or salary, without any assets classifies you as...rich!!!

People with severe disabilities who need personal attendant have to make

themselves really poor even if they have a private insurance that may pay

for the other needs. Why? Because ONLY Medicaid ( insurance for the poor)

provides personal attendants.

It is very humiliating for me, a person with severe disability who needs

personal attendant , to make my self poor in order to have my needs met.

With the single payer system it will be one system for all-not different

for the poor, different for the sick, different for the healthy.

Now you can answer about the...homeless!

Melina

In a message dated 9/29/2009 1:53:07 P.M. Central Standard Time,

way2square@... writes:

I always hear advocates of healthcare reform in the US saying that sick

people shouldn't have to " spend down " in order to qualify for Medicaid, the

healthcare program for the poor. They say people should qualify for this free

healthcare program without having to first use their own money toward

their healthcare needs. But, there are plenty of working people like me who

spend all of their income on food and housing. Why should I have to " spend

down " on these basic needs before qualifying for food stamps and housing

assistance programs? Shouldn't the government provide free food and a free home

to me so that I don't have to spend my own money on these things? Shouldn't

I have a right to free food and free shelter without negatively impacting

my lifestyle to get it?

The argument seems to be, " because some people are wealthy and others are

not, therefore we need to confiscate that wealth to provide free healthcare

for everyone. " If people really believe this, then why isn't there a

concern about needs more basic than healthcare? In the US, there are more

people

who go hungry and are homeless than people who lack access to healthcare.

If government-run healthcare is such a good idea, then why shouldn't we

also create a government-run grocery store to hand out free food and compete

with corporate interests?

If you believe the drug companies and health providers are unfairly

profiting from your healthcare needs, then certainly you must see an even

bigger

problem in huge corporate grocery stores and home builders profiting off

the hungry and the homeless.